On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 08:22:53PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:08:16PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > From: Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > > > > Al, the patch itself looks good, thanks. > > > > However, if this is applied at the start of the series it could > > allow tests to easily cause a stack overflow during a bisection (I > > don't think users would see a kernel in the middle of the series). > > > > Could this be converted over to checking nd->link_count along with > > the [02/24] patch until closer to the end of the series when the > > recursion has been removed? > > Er... You do realize that struct nameidata is opaque for anything outside > of fs/namei.c and has been that way for a while now? Sure, we can export > a helper that would return that and rip it out in the end of the series, > but...
Actually, a cleaner solution would be to reorder that bunch (1--6) past the link_path_walk() reorganization. Done and force-pushed to the same branch... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
